Atomic ets

Robert Raschke wrote:
> I can understand the problems you get once you decide to go down the
> route of shared storage between parallel tasks. I guess I myself
> would find it way too complicated. My approach to dealing with shared
> storage is to use one of the two technologies that have solved this
> problem: databases or file systems. I am lazy.
>> In my mind, if you want to have a parallel application, then any kind
> of shared storage creates a bottleneck. You can whittle away all you
> like it will remain a limiting factor.
>> Granted, the opposite approach of message passing and local storage
> has the overhead of copying lots of data.
Not necessarily: immutable data can be stored in shared memory as an
implementation detail.
There is some overhead associated with using persistent/immutable data
structures as opposed to mutable structures, but this is still a good
approach for many applications (and you can still use mutable structures
within a process).
--
David Hopwood <>